The illusion of free will

Quantum Quack said:
oh well... suit yourself...but please allow for the possibility that other's may feel other wise...
Click to expand...
Of course I allow for it, but since you addressed the question to me, it was responded to.
And you should allow for the possibility that others may feel the same as me, and that the issue is not one of what we understand but of what you post.
 
Sarkus said:
Of course I allow for it, but since you addressed the question to me, it was responded to.
And you should allow for the possibility that others may feel the same as me, and that the issue is not one of what we understand but of what you post.
Click to expand...
but of course I take full responsibility for what I post... do you? [given your belief in the illusion of responsibility]

The problem is I feel that the following is a logical truth.

To prove logically that
a=a
we have to include the assumption of zero difference.

a = a because a - a = 0

other wise the a=a statement is merely a "call to authority"
To remove the need for assumptions and to logically prove that a=a it must be shown that (a - a) does indeed = 0

Unfortunately you seem to have an issue dealing with logical truths...
so

A+B=C
only because
C-(A+B)=0
is a logical truth
as it passes muster in all universes, worlds and circumstances

where as
A+B=C is only an assumed truth and not a logical truth.
so I wasn't kidding when I wrote:
and eventually arrive at the only conclusion possible, that being that the entire universe, materially, metaphysically, epistemologically, and spiritually is utterly dependent on the immutability and constancy of something that is non-existent.
Click to expand...
and I really don't care what label you give to that non-existent thing....
 
Last edited:
You may also recall the issue of calculating 0.999...=1 and how including the assumed values manages to highlight and clear up the error in context [values and quantities] used to calculate something that can only be defined.
0.999proofcompare.jpg


It is only by including the presumed values that one can logically prove anything beyond "call to authority".
The one on the right is logically valid and can not be dis-proven where as the one on the left switches context midstream to arrive at the result.
 
you know.. usually when someone trys to explain a position and no one understands it, that someone usually gives up.
 
Quantum Quack said:
but of course I take full responsibility for what I post... do you? [given your belief in the illusion of responsibility]
Click to expand...
More deliberate misrepresentation from you, QQ. But I'm getting used to it.
The rest of your post, well, that's just more of the same you spout in seemingly every thread possible. You have done nothing but latch onto the the mathematical importance of zero (and yes, it is indeed significant) and tried to turn it into some philosophical notion that, at its heart is just a claim to the mathematical significance.
What you don't grasp is the non sequitur between your claim ("zero is significant") and your conclusion ("freewill is genuine") and as if to support the conclusion all you do is restate the claim.
Maybe one day you will actually apply your interest and desire to appear logical to the majority of your posts.

As for your rubbish on trying to disprove the notion that 0.999...=1, if you had bothered to read or understand the responses that rpenner has been at labour to provide to hansda and others, you'd know that your reasoning is flawed. While the second option you post is sound, your criticism of the first is not, as there is no "switching of context".

But take that to the other thread, as this thread would be for when you manage to come up with something between your claim and your conclusion.
 
NMSquirrel said:
you know.. usually when someone trys to explain a position and no one understands it, that someone usually gives up.
Click to expand...
you know... usually when someone falsely claims that no one understands just because he doesn't, actually reinforces the opinions of his own ineptitude.
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
More deliberate misrepresentation from you, QQ. But I'm getting used to it.
The rest of your post, well, that's just more of the same you spout in seemingly every thread possible. You have done nothing but latch onto the the mathematical importance of zero (and yes, it is indeed significant) and tried to turn it into some philosophical notion that, at its heart is just a claim to the mathematical significance.
What you don't grasp is the non sequitur between your claim ("zero is significant") and your conclusion ("freewill is genuine") and as if to support the conclusion all you do is restate the claim.
Click to expand...
What you fail to understand is that if you can not fathom the significance of zero [as a value] to philosophy generally you will never be able to fathom the significance of zero [as a value] to this debate about freewill being an illusion. [of value]

As for your rubbish on trying to disprove the notion that 0.999...=1, if you had bothered to read or understand the responses that rpenner has been at labour to provide to hansda and others, you'd know that your reasoning is flawed. While the second option you post is sound, your criticism of the first is not, as there is no "switching of context".
Click to expand...

Oh I totally agree that 0.999... can be defined to equal 1, but disagree that it can be calculated... do you know the difference or are your just wagging you tongue for the fun of it...

But take that to the other thread, as this thread would be for when you manage to come up with something between your claim and your conclusion.
Click to expand...
well as yet you have failed to demonstrate the capacity to understand the relevance... as you still refuse to accept or even consider that the value of zero is the most important (non)value this universe has.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
you know... usually when someone falsely claims that no one understands just because he doesn't, actually reinforces the opinions of his own ineptitude.
Click to expand...

is this an attempt to insult me?
the consensus is that you are wrong, that you don't know what you are talking about.. this is the basis for my claim that others do not know what you are talking about.

im not even trying to understand what you are talking about.
I don't care.
 
NMSquirrel said:
is this an attempt to insult me?
the consensus is that you are wrong, that you don't know what you are talking about.. this is the basis for my claim that others do not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
What consensus are you referring to?
im not even trying to understand what you are talking about.
I don't care.
Click to expand...
this was and is blatantly obvious from the start... so what's new... you claim I am wrong yet are not "even trying to understand" what I am talking about"!:eek:

A new word: Opigion: means: opinion given from a position of ignorance. :) oops! wrong smiley! try :rolleyes:
 
Quantum Quack said:
What you fail to understand is that if you can not fathom the significance of zero [as a value] to philosophy generally you will never be able to fathom the significance of zero [as a value] to this debate about freewill being an illusion. [of value]
Click to expand...
And in the same vein I can tell you that if you continue to confuse the notions of nothing [as a philosophical concept] and zero [a value] you will continue to reach daft conclusions.
Presumably you do understand the differences, between "nothing" and the value "zero"?
Oh I totally agree that 0.999... can be defined to equal 1, but disagree that it can be calculated... do you know the difference or are your just wagging you tongue for the fun of it...
Click to expand...
It is not just a matter of "can" be defined, but that they are mathematically equivalent. As said, if you disagree, take it to the other thread that is specifically for that very topic.
well as yet you have failed to demonstrate the capacity to understand the relevance... as you still refuse to accept or even consider that the value of zero is the most important (non)value this universe has.
Click to expand...
I am fully aware of the significance of the value "zero". I have never refused to accept its importance, as without it we would have no modern mathematics, no modern science, no algebra etc.
what you continue to do is refuse to show how you go from the claim that zero is so important (even ignoring your confusing it with the notion of "nothingness") to your conclusion of "freewill is genuine". You have done nothing but stall and obfuscate.
 
Sarkus said:
And in the same vein I can tell you that if you continue to confuse the notions of nothing [as a philosophical concept] and zero [a value] you will continue to reach daft conclusions.
Presumably you do understand the differences, between "nothing" and the value "zero"?
It is not just a matter of "can" be defined, but that they are mathematically equivalent. As said, if you disagree, take it to the other thread that is specifically for that very topic.
I am fully aware of the significance of the value "zero". I have never refused to accept its importance, as without it we would have no modern mathematics, no modern science, no algebra etc.
what you continue to do is refuse to show how you go from the claim that zero is so important (even ignoring your confusing it with the notion of "nothingness") to your conclusion of "freewill is genuine". You have done nothing but stall and obfuscate.
Click to expand...

Can you appreciate, even if only in principle, that at any given t=0 the universe is non-existent? That all experiences are temporal in nature?

The logical truth involved [ all worlds and situations]

"Nothing" can exist if there is no time for something to exist in.
 
Quantum Quack said:
@Sarkus,
can I ask?
What did you think of this thread... the one you looked at recently thread dated 2005 Google: Philosophy of Zero
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?47781-The-philosophy-of-zero/page1
Click to expand...
I think it shows that, despite being told the difference, you continually mix contexts between "nothing" and zero. You keep apologising for doing so yet you continue to do it, and expect others to take you seriously about it.
Further, I find some comments logically flawed, such as excluding the middle:
E.g. "Yes, I tend to think that with out a concept of zero difference we would not be able to recognise actual differences." where you fail to acknowledge the possibility that difference is understood to be the default. I.e. everything is assumed different from the get go, or the possibility that recognition of difference is hardwired rather than deduced (unless you advocate bees unable to tell the difference between certain plants, or dogs unable to tell the difference between an owner and stranger? Or perhaps you think them capable of understanding the concept of zero?)

But regardless of what I think of that thread, it still does nothing... absolutely nothing... to show how you get from your claim of "nothingness is importance" to "therefore freewill".
 
Quantum Quack said:
Can you appreciate that at any given t=0 the universe is non-existent? That all experiences are temporal in nature?
Click to expand...
The former, no. The latter, yes, as experience requires the passage of time.
But at any given t=0 (I.e. at any given snapshot) the structure of the universe remains. Merely time does not, with no change, no motion.
If you take a photograph of a runner in action, you have effectively established a 2d representation of a given t=0. This would show that while there is no passage of time at that precise moment, there is an existent and persistent structure.
 
Sarkus said:
The former, no. The latter, yes, as experience requires the passage of time.
But at any given t=0 (I.e. at any given snapshot) the structure of the universe remains. Merely time does not, with no change, no motion.
If you take a photograph of a runner in action, you have effectively established a 2d representation of a given t=0. This would show that while there is no passage of time at that precise moment, there is an existent and persistent structure.
Click to expand...
the edited post included the following..[sorry]

The logical truth involved [ all worlds and situations]

"Nothing" can exist if there is no time for something to exist in.
If the shutter speed of the camera was set at zero duration there would be no snap shot... agreed?
 
If you take a photograph of a runner in action, you have effectively established a 2d representation of a given t=0. This would show that while there is no passage of time at that precise moment, there is an existent and persistent structure.
Click to expand...
an interesting angle....hmmm but if there is no passage of time then how can anything exist? Unless you are suggesting that time is somehow suspended with out passage as is the case with your image analogy I think..?
 
Quantum Quack said:
an interesting angle....hmmm but if there is no passage of time then how can anything exist? Unless you are suggesting that time is somehow suspended with out passage as is the case with your image analogy I think..?
Click to expand...

Time is to measure how quick your car is in the 1/4 mile, for bragging rights, the least amount of time the better! :)

Course, the car exists at the start line in 3D at t=0 (the start of the clock) just as the finish line 1320 feet away from the start line exists at the same t=0.

Time doesn't explain where the car came from or who built it, it just gives the quickest car the most bragging rights! ;)
 
free will is an illusion if choice is a mergefull relevance in personal life, (business relevances do from time to merge).
 
Quantum Quack said:
What consensus are you referring to?
Click to expand...
do I really need to explain this?

this was and is blatantly obvious from the start... so what's new... you claim I am wrong yet are not "even trying to understand" what I am talking about"!:eek:
Click to expand...
I don't think I have claimed you are wrong.
I said everyone else claims you are wrong.


now seriously, what are you here for?
respect for your opinions?
a place to vent?
to piss off every person who replies to your posts?
is there no one here who you respect?
then why are you here?

honestly, I do not expect you to give a straight answer.
you haven't yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top